Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

So ultimately climate change isn't real because government regulation causes corruption?



Doesn't that bring us back to one of the only examples in modern history where this sort of thing was tried? The closest thing we've had to a totally free market economy, was shown to not be very successful at all. viewtopic.php?p=315863#p315863

+1 for climate change being real.

Interesting read EB - In principle I think the Libertarian ideas are fine, the problem is some people have an appetite for money and power that exceeds any reasonable need and without regulation .

I cringed when I read your info on that link EB. The wages information is exactly like what has been going on in the US since the 60's. Everyone but the top earners have lost buying power in real dollar terms. I think in some cases it doesn't seem to matter who's in office because of market conditions like cheap labor in China...

Well first we had the problem of the government run monopoly in the first place
This maybe be true for a short time, however assuming this now private company is completely free of advantages given to them by the government (expensive regulations preventing smaller companies from competing) Competition will prevail. Maybe the first couple of competitors may find it hard to break into the market however while large companies can have the advantage of scale, smaller companies are often far more efficient. This will eventually wear down any profits that may be left over from former monopoly days. Telstra in Australia is a good example. DESPITE Telstra owning most of the copper wire in the "last mile" giving it a big advantage over its competitors, we see a slow but steady erosion of their market share to the likes of optus, vodafone, etc as they can be more competive not just in price but new and innovative services. Sure they are still better in some way, but they have disadvantages. It is not a monopoly if other companies can successfully compete.


This is a great point. It brings to mind the monopolisation of aluminium and other commodities by JP Morgan. However JP Morgan is one of the most powerful groups in the world and has an incredible influence over the US congress and so we certainly can't use that as an example of monopolies existing in the free market.

Maybe microsoft is a good example. Should they have been made to break up ?
There was that court case over including internet explorer (was it ?) and pushing out competition. Its not really a monopoly, other companies can still compete if they want to. Microsoft just have a superior product. For all the complaints about the windows series, it is still to this day generally a better alternative. iOS and all the Unix based systems are competitors, and they make money so it is not really a monopoly.

True but we can never know (well we can, but it takes a lot of time) how much political power some companies have to affect the outcome of court cases and such.
I don't see a problem with buying them. If the company only has a few shareholders then its totally up to the owners to sell or not. If it is a publicly listed company then its still up the the majority shareholder whether or not they want to sell out more than a controlling share 51% or whatever.

I don't know the story but I would be very surprised if they were totally seperated from all the political-corporate dealings that are common place today.
This was by no means a purely free market company. The government had some sort of control of it from the very start, and there is no way there were not ongoing entanglements between the company and the government. They had a lot of political power and so this just goes under the umbrella of a monopoly that exists because of government intervention. Just because the government has to break up a company doesn't meant it wasnt the government that allowed to become so large in the first place.
Governments have been known to change their mind in a heartbeat due to public (or other) pressure.
I'm still thinking all.. unless they are not a true monopoly... maybe there are some examples that seem to be this way.. but the devil is always in the details..


I would like to retract the harshness and brevity of the statement. I do however still put forward that in almost all cases regulations on companies are lobbied for by the large corporations in order to prevent competition. Sometimes regulations seem good but in reality they just make bad regulations slightly better.
Some regulations seem totally necessary however without the bloated and growing state may not be needed at all.
My opinion comes from many hours of reading and research (Im not trying to impress anyone) so the context from which it comes might seem a bit out of field but I stand by it and am willing to refer anyone interested to the material.

The Chile story sounds like a prequel to the Hunger Games.

M$ is getting a shiny reputation nowadays because of Bill Gates' laudable charity work. But I remember when any and all alternatives to M$ were threatened, and as an Apple fan I do not agree that M$ technology is superior. But lets not fork the debate yet again LOL.

climate changes have been going on for thousands of years.
Example: Greenland
Vickings used to grow wheat, corn and other stuff there. They also had cattle and pigs raising there. Are we able to do it now? Hell no. It is frozen. What was the cause?
Maybe Vicking were driving SUVs and big diesel trucks like me!

Human is not the cause of climate change. History of planet earth has proven that it will change again and again.
The End.

The history of planet earth... has shown that humans have only been here for a short period of time...

And lots, and lots of humans... for an even shorter time...

Science and collected data... shows a consistant relationship... between humans... and the amount of environmental pollution.... that corresponds to that same even shorter period of time...

Take the humans out of the equation.... and the climate will undoubtably just go on doing it's thing... as it always have....

But leave the humans in their... dumping their wastes into the system... then the normal processes are altered....

How you can be so blind... as to assume otherwise....

You could perhaps argue as to the degree of effect.... but to deny that we as humans have an effect... is just mindboggling bizzare...

Just where do you think all our human wastes are going... mysteriously dissapating into the ether....

i typed this while rupe was typing...and i agree with your rupe..
but some people have their own agenda (the people that are corporations!)
it's hard (read impossible) to argue with anyone that will not look at facts or science..or will only listen to climate change deniers that have no real understanding of science.. like the intelligent design folks..

and if you think gov't is running the show... look to see who is pulling the strings..

americans have no clue (for the most part).. the income gap has grown - the rich get richer, and the middle class get poor, yet tea baggers think they're next in line to "get rich", and think the regulations are helping them.. when in fact, the regulations are helping the corporations (who are people) and screwing the average person

How did you know I am blind? Way to go Ruper.

You are correct, I forgot that we went to other planets and brought all the waste here. Humans can only hurt themselves. Humans are not capable of doing anything to planet earth. Plant earth will go on after us.

And yes, I do agree that we have to take care of our areas, because it only will effect us, not planet earth. Planet earth will clean itself, as it has done so for millions of years.

There has been outstanding humans, and also evil humans. And it will continue to be.

There is a price for everything in life. And it has to be earned!

Undoubtably the planet will clean, heal itself.. after we've gone...

The whole planets systems are designed, and inter-related... to maintain a balance.... Zubin..

But there's just so many of us... and we're spewing so much shit into the water and the air... that we're overwealming the speed at which the planets natural mechanisms can react...

That's the point that science is making....

Not the we'll kill the planet.... but that the planet's mechanisms may not be able to respond fast enough... to prevent us... from killing ourselves...

Or at least... placing huge pressures on ourselves... by way of climate change... weather extremes.. floods, droughts, hurricanes... famines etc...

Balance, is the key. And there are only so many ways to fix the problem. People make waste end of discussion, now the amount of waste can be worked on. So we will reach a point no matter how effecient we are with waste that just to many people will exist, and we will either start dying or have to select who lives. There is no other way around it. I do agree that eventually there will be to many people on this planet, IMO we have way to many now.

The exception is that because of our actions now that lots and lots of species that were doing OK are now going extinct. We're taking others with us. Also, I would prefer my kids to have as nice a planet to live in as I have had so far. And my grandkids too.

I think folks look at the Earth as too big to be affected by us puny humans. This graphic of how big the fresh water and fresh air are in comparison to the Earth helps to show that we can indeed eff these things up:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... tmosphere/

What caused the distinction of dinosaurs? How about potato famine?
Any a simple question:
What are you able to do about China, India, and .........with highest populations, and no regards for well being of planet earth?

And about those few who were talking about corporations.
One has to do a lot of research about Association of Bank Owners first. Association of Bank Owners have no respect for borders, humanity, race, and have no virtues.

Some people think that FEDs is an entity of US Government. No, it is a private entity and it is part of the Association Of Bank Owners. They are for themselves, and we pay the price.

Our founding fathers were against central banks, due to what they had seen and experienced in Europe. Before creation of FEDs in US, people were very virtuous. And that is the most important requirement in order to have a Republic. Our Founding Fathers were against democracy, I assume you already knew that.
There is a huge difference between Republic, and Democracy.

But anyway, after creation of FEDs, ABO [Association of Bank Owners] knew that they have to keep people uninformed and get their attention to something other than the Republic and the Freedom. So, they hired expert psychologists and came up with so many ways to get people's attention away from those areas.
They hired radio announcers to glorify sports and made Gods out of sports figures. Not only peoples attention went there, but also they started another way of making a lot of money. (Baseball was the initial start of it). Look at all the sports all over the world. In US, we have something going on 12 months a year. No one reads anymore. Students in schools here do not know much these days, geography, history, and of course forget about mathematics and science. And these days we have so many worthless programs all over cable TV to get them busy 24X7.
Today, a very small fraction of Americans know our History, Constitution. Maybe a fraction of one percent has read the Federalist Papers. If one does not read those documents, then it is very hard to understand the purpose of The American Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
There is so much to say here, and so little time!



Those who are interested might find these 12 sections of this youtube presentations very educational.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7auQEXTWomA

The dinosaurs became extinct because of a communist plot to rid the world of large animals. The potato famine was bought about by the world bank hoarding potato chips?

Everything can be a conspiracy if you want it to be.

Bloody socialists...

SV,

Really governments don't allow much in the way of total monopolies. Monopolies are a lot like parasites - the ones that survive the longest are the ones that don't kill the host.

I didn't use the Microsoft example because I didn't think it was a good example of a monopoly more of an example of anti-competitive behavior.

Re ALCoA


There's not much doubt in my mind that corporations get lots of legislation passed the helps them and impeeds their competitor. I agree, you'll never find a corporation that's free from these entanglements, which makes it hard to show that monopolies are inherently stable or unstable.